Can I view 1920 by 800 video in fullscreen on 1080p screen?

2009-07-05 15:22:18

#1

teek22: Add "teek22" on your PS3 fools!; +133|6643|Bromley, London

So the subject explains it all.

I have downloaded a lot of HD films since I have been at uni and some that I have downloaded that say they are 1080p but in the shitty format of 1920 by 800.

I view my HD films by connecting my laptop to my TV via HDMI cable. And I can change the resolution to 720p or 1080p.
Now I can view any film that is 720p or 1080p on my TV without those annoying black lines along the top and bottom. But some films are not in this format like 1920 by 800, and when I view these i get those annoying ass black lines running along the top and bottom of the screen. Is there anyway to get rid of these? I have tried media player and VLC and none seem to do these.

So was wondering if anyone knew how get rid of these black lines?

Thanks in advance.

2009-07-05 15:52:44

#2

some_random_panda: Flamesuit essential; +454|6653

I guess go to your graphics card and get it to stretch the picture?

Why do you want to cut off bits of the film, especially as they might have been recorded in that format in the first place?

*I think cinemas use an aspect ratio similar to 1920x800

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-07-05 15:55:40)

2009-07-05 16:03:29

#3

teek22: Add "teek22" on your PS3 fools!; +133|6643|Bromley, London

hmm.

nooo I defo don't want to cut the film! Just would like the black lines not be there.

It would be ideal if I could just "stretch" it vertically but keep the horizontal length as it is.

2009-07-05 16:20:51

#4

some_random_panda: Flamesuit essential; +454|6653

teek22 wrote:
hmm.

nooo I defo don't want to cut the film! Just would like the black lines not be there.

It would be ideal if I could just "stretch" it vertically but keep the horizontal length as it is.

You can, go to the control panel for NVidia and look for aspect ratios/resizing/something like that. For ATI, I've never tried it, but I'm sure there's a similar setting.

*ATI calls it "Image scaling" under "Digital Panel (DVI) > Attributes"

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-07-05 16:28:56)

2009-07-05 16:24:51

#5

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|7001|Toronto | Canada

Why would you bother downloading it in HD just to distort the image by stretching it?

2009-07-05 16:49:56

#6

MadDogs&RunningMen: I'm back; +25|5682

lol

2009-07-05 16:52:18

#7

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|7004|FUCK UBISOFT

1920x800 is 1080p

1080p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1920

720p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1280

Nonetheless, the aspect ratio of these videos is different from the aspect ratio of your TV, so you'll have to put up with the lines if you want to maintain quality.

2009-07-05 16:56:35

#8

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6459|Winland

Miggle wrote:
1920x800 is 1080p

1080p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1920

720p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1280

Nonetheless, the aspect ratio of these videos is different from the aspect ratio of your TV, so you'll have to put up with the lines if you want to maintain quality.

1080p means 1080 vertical pixels. I don't know about you, but to me, 800 doesn't seem synonymous to 1080.

Anyhow, VLC Media player has an option to crop to aspect ratios. I'm sure MPC has that feature too, but I haven't found it.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-07-05 19:13:40

#9

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|7004|FUCK UBISOFT

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Miggle wrote:
1920x800 is 1080p

1080p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1920

720p usually means any widescreen resolution with a width of 1280

Nonetheless, the aspect ratio of these videos is different from the aspect ratio of your TV, so you'll have to put up with the lines if you want to maintain quality.
1080p means 1080 vertical pixels. I don't know about you, but to me, 800 doesn't seem synonymous to 1080.

Anyhow, VLC Media player has an option to crop to aspect ratios. I'm sure MPC has that feature too, but I haven't found it.

yes, literally that is what it means.

But the constant with movies labeled 1080p isn't the 1080 pixels in height, it's the 1920 pixels in width.

2009-07-05 19:53:45

#10

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6050|Catherine Black

Yeah VLC has the option to crop the picture, press C while it's running, or go right click > video > aspect ratio.

4:3 Family guy converted to 5:4 for my monitor

2009-07-06 00:42:02

#11

Defiance: Member; +438|6933

I don't see why you'd want to deform the aspect ratio just so the screen is filled. But, as said, simply change the aspect ratio/crop in VLC and it'll be as fucked up as you like.

2009-07-06 00:51:39

#12

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6654|Southern California

Deformed videos make baby jesus cry.

2009-07-06 03:25:56

#13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6844|SE London

The only sensible way of running those files is letterboxed.

Stretching will make it horribly distorted. Zooming will result in losing some of the image.

2009-07-06 08:01:10

#14

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6459|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:
The only sensible way of running those files is letterboxed.

Stretching will make it horribly distorted. Zooming will result in losing some of the image.

On shitty TN monitors with 700:1 contrast, it makes sense to get rid of the letterbox, as it's dark greyish rather than black.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-07-06 08:05:16

#15

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6676|Finland

Better get them in 1920x1080 then. Or face letterbox horror. (is it REALLY that bad tbh?)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-07-06 09:15:16

#16

Defiance: Member; +438|6933

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
The only sensible way of running those files is letterboxed.

Stretching will make it horribly distorted. Zooming will result in losing some of the image.
On shitty TN monitors with 700:1 contrast, it makes sense to get rid of the letterbox, as it's dark greyish rather than black.

No, it doesn't make any more 'sense' logically if the color is different. The argument is between keeping the aspect ratio the way it should be or deforming the image grotesquely and the answer ought to be clear. If the color was something like neon green or a bright pink, I would probably face the deformation but in the realm of greyscale, nothing makes more sense then keeping the bars.

Also, if you want to nit pick technical details, the bars will never be black. They will always and forever be a dark grey because under the known laws of physics, black is an impossibility.

2009-07-06 09:22:26

#17

teek22: Add "teek22" on your PS3 fools!; +133|6643|Bromley, London

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Better get them in 1920x1080 then. Or face letterbox horror. (is it REALLY that bad tbh?)

Not that bad. Just wondered if I could get fullscreen. Just looks so much better when it takes up full size of screen.

Guess I will live with those black lines.

2009-07-06 09:31:46

#18

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6459|Winland

Defiance wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
The only sensible way of running those files is letterboxed.

Stretching will make it horribly distorted. Zooming will result in losing some of the image.
On shitty TN monitors with 700:1 contrast, it makes sense to get rid of the letterbox, as it's dark greyish rather than black.
No, it doesn't make any more 'sense' logically if the color is different. The argument is between keeping the aspect ratio the way it should be or deforming the image grotesquely and the answer ought to be clear. If the color was something like neon green or a bright pink, I would probably face the deformation but in the realm of greyscale, nothing makes more sense then keeping the bars.

Also, if you want to nit pick technical details, the bars will never be black. They will always and forever be a dark grey because under the known laws of physics, black is an impossibility.

I was talking about cropping. I prefer losing a couple of percent of the image area rather than seeing obviously illuminated bars around the image. If it wasn't for the fact that most TN screens have a straight down horrible contrast ratio, I would prefer letterboxing. And no, I'm not nit-picking about absolute blackness, what I mean is that the screen should appear to end where the picture does, much like the way VFD or real LED displays work; where there is no signal, they emit no light.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-07-06 09:32:20)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-07-06 10:30:39

#19

Defiance: Member; +438|6933

For someone so intent on eliminating minute flaws from audio, I don't understand how you can abide by such an abundant loss of video data.

I'm going to assume the OP's screen is 1920x1080, 16:9, as most are.

The source video is 1920x800, or 2.4*Y = X

To find the X resolution;
2.4 * 1080 = 2592

Your new screen size is 2592x1080, but you want to crop it down to 1920x1080. What you lose is 672 horizontal pixels. A couple percent you say?

(672*1080) / (2592*1080) = 672/2592 = .259

26% is more then a couple percent. Especially with modern cinephotography's obsession over the rule of thirds, you're coming close to cutting off whatever the subject of the frame is. And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.

2009-07-06 10:36:33

#20

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6459|Winland

Defiance wrote:
26% is more then a couple percent. Especially with modern cinephotography's obsession over the rule of thirds, you're coming close to cutting off whatever the subject of the frame is. And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.

It's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I get more annoyed at the bright lines around the picture than knowing that I lose some data.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-07-06 10:38:24

#21

teek22: Add "teek22" on your PS3 fools!; +133|6643|Bromley, London

I see. Well guess what I have learnt is to just watch it with the black lines. Guess I will live.

2009-07-06 13:20:12

#22

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6844|SE London

Defiance wrote:
And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.

That's what I keep saying.

But everyone keeps going on about how they love their cheap Samsungs - virtually all of which are crappy TN panels. Why does no one invest in a proper monitor? It's what you'll be looking at the whole time you use your PC, so get a good one.

2009-07-06 13:33:21

#23

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6915

Bertster7 wrote:
Defiance wrote:
And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.
That's what I keep saying.

But everyone keeps going on about how they love their cheap Samsungs - virtually all of which are crappy TN panels. Why does no one invest in a proper monitor? It's what you'll be looking at the whole time you use your PC, so get a good one.

Because I'm ignorant of higher quality kinds of monitor having never actually seen them in action. And I wouldn't want to either, lest I end up being unsatisfied with what I've got now. Also, I thought that disregarding TN panels, there are no affordable all-round choices?

As for the whole 1080p sham, I wish that 21:9 videos would actually be in 2592x1080, rather than 1920x800. I don't own one of those philips 21:9 TV's, and I don't like black bars

2009-07-06 14:12:34

#24

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6459|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:
Defiance wrote:
And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.
That's what I keep saying.

But everyone keeps going on about how they love their cheap Samsungs - virtually all of which are crappy TN panels. Why does no one invest in a proper monitor? It's what you'll be looking at the whole time you use your PC, so get a good one.

Spending money on a proper monitor is something everyone should do, but if you're looking for a non-TN panel that you can also play games on without major compromises, the sums are huge.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-07-06 14:26:51)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-07-06 14:17:20

#25

jaymz9350: Member; +54|6839

Bertster7 wrote:
Defiance wrote:
And yes, TN panels are shitty; that's well known. Hardly an excuse to remove a quarter of the screen.
That's what I keep saying.

But everyone keeps going on about how they love their cheap Samsungs - virtually all of which are crappy TN panels. Why does no one invest in a proper monitor? It's what you'll be looking at the whole time you use your PC, so get a good one.

Some people (like me) don't see that the benefits of the better (more expensive) monitors out way the price premium you pay. I am more than happy with my TN panel Samsung, and was more than happy with my cheap ass ACER 17" LCD before it.

It's alot like people who don't really care about having a super audio system such as my self. I don't see the benefits being worth the price.

BF2S Forums Can I view 1920 by 800 video in fullscreen on 1080p screen?

teek22 wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Defiance wrote:

Board footer